Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. K. Karanja

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The participants in this discussion cannot agree on whether the sources and archievements, that exist and are not doubted by anybody, make this subject notable or not. As such, there is no other viable option than to close this as "no consensus" but with a sentiment amongst the participants that further improvement is probably needed. Regards SoWhy 10:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K. K. Karanja[edit]

K. K. Karanja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article is someone who was once a promising young chess player. He apparently abandoned the game shortly after obtaining the National Master title from the United States Chess Federation. The player's current rating (from January 1990) is 2193, just below National Master (2200) level. (Go here and type in Karanja.) There are probably over 100,000 players in the world stronger than that. According to this article, "[i]t is unknown whether he still plays". In addition, an examination of the sources cited in the article shows that many of the statements about Karanja's chess achievements are not supported (note the "citation needed" tags throughout the article).

Karanja's 2193 rating places him far below the Grandmaster level, which members of WikiProject Chess generally accept as notable; the International Master level, which may be notable, particularly if one has other achievements (for example, as a writer or chess coach), e.g. John L. Watson, Mark Dvoretsky); and even the FIDE Master level, which generally is not considered notable unless one has substantial other achievements (for example, as a writer, e.g. Graham Burgess, Eric Schiller). Karanja's rating is slightly below that of Pete Karagianis, who was recently deleted as non-notable after a unanimous vote. In addition, Karagianis had been Iowa State Champion twice, and had written about chess.

The article describes him as a "prodigy", but his achievement of attaining the National Master title before age 16 pales in comparison to players like Ray Robson and Fabiano Caruana, who qualified for the Grandmaster title before age 15, or even Kayden Troff, age 11 (possibly 10, depending on when his birthday is), who recently achieved a 2215 FIDE rating. I do not think that Karanja's achievements as a young player, in the absence of any career after age 16, are sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Krakatoa (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. SyG (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are the following reasons this article should not be deleted:

1. He drew with the World Chess Champion (Garry Kasparov, arguably the greatest chessplayer of all-time) in a simul while only a teenager -- a feat accomplished by only one other person at the time (who has his own Wiki site).
2. As winner of the Laura Aspis Prize, he is automatically notable as being the top chessplayer under age 13 in the United States. That alone is notable; having been African-American and accomplishing the feat helped contribute to his pioneering status.
3. Winning the National Elementary Championship cemented his status as a prodigy; him being the first African-American to win the penultimate elementary championship in the United States, in combination with his other achievements makes the history of chess incomplete without his inclusion.

I agree that his current rating and status do not make him notable; however, neither does the status of Joshua Waitzkin, Vinay Bhat, Patrick Wolff, Stuart Rachels, Ilya Gurevich, Maurice Ashley, or Tal Shaked. What makes Karanja notable is the same thing that makes each of these people notable: their pioneering accomplishments during their peak playing days.

For these reasons, this article should not be deleted. I warmly welcome others to contribute to it in order to make it a better piece, hopefully with the same fervor and energy as those who desire to see it removed.

Please feel free to ask any further questions. Thank you. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<snip>the famous book and movie Searching for Bobby Fischer were written about him. </snip> ... you failed to mention that his (Josh's) father wrote the book. Gee, I could get my dad to write a book about me. I could bribe the newspapers to make articles about me. Would that make a notable or newsworthy person (No Josh Bashing intended)? - 75.159.103.161 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - for the time being, based on coverage he received at the time. But there are many things that need to be referenced, some material seems to be opinion, and things such as him inspiring non-notable (i.e. no WP article) players needs to stay out. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 00:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum - I think more goes into notability of a chess player than just the height that they achieve. K.K. got a lot of coverage at the time. He was even a guest commentator in the TV coverage of a world championship match. Many people remember his name and may come to Wikipedia to look him up. On the other hand, there are probably over 1,000 grandmasters with articles that I've never heard of. For comparison, the chess project has about 3,250 articles. K.K.'s article is the #515 most frequently read, being read 22 times per day. In contrast, Artashes Minasian is a grandmaster but his article is #1500 on the list and is read about 5 times per day. Ernesto Inarkiev is #1498 - another grandmaster I've never heard of. And there are about 1,750 chess articles that are less-frequently read than that one - a large number of which are grandmasters who almost none has ever heard of.
    • I don't think drawing Kaspy in a simul or winning the Laura Aspis Prize makes him notable; and I don't think that winning the US Elementry school championship necessarily makes one a prodigy. If that was true, we would have some new prodigies each year like clockwork. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Krakatoa's analysis. Regarding the points made for inclusion: (1) Drawing against Kasparov in a simultaneous exhibition does not equate to notability. In fact, there are only a few cases where beating a champion at a simul gives a person a place in chess history (John Lindsay McCutcheon being one of them), so I cannot see that drawing a master can yield much notability either. While Karanja may have been the first person at the time to manage that feat, it is not unique. In fact there is one player in my hometown of Bergen who managed to draw Kasparov in 2000, and who doesn't have an article either. (2) While I feel that winning a national championship is enough for notability, I cannot hold the same true for the age-restricted Elementary School championships. Winning an international championship may be enough, but the National Elementary School Championships aren't really all that strong. (3) Pretty much ditto on the Laura Aspis prize, it is an age-restricted national achievement. While obviously a very strong player, Mr. Karanja has not attained the titles where his strength makes him notable, and the coverage is mostly incidental. The only one which goes into in-depth coverage on Mr. Karanja is The Chess Drum, and that one appears to be self-published. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I obviously agree with Sjakkalle. However, in fairness, I do not believe that the coverage of Karanja on The Chess Drum is self-published. That site focuses on African-American chessplayers. Its webmaster is Daaim Shabazz (whom I knew in our youth, and who is now a professor in Florida, and a Facebook friend of mine). The article about Karanja on that site indicates that he returned to Kenya and that it is unknown whether he plays chess anymore. As far as I know, Karanja has no connection to the site. Krakatoa (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ChessDrum article said that it was written by a friend of K.K. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Friend Reflects on KK Karanja - I think the friend referred to is Geoff Gladstone, a college friend of Karanja's (in the early 1990s, I would guess), who is quoted at the end of the piece. Krakatoa (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my position to weak keep based on the NYT source in Pawnkingthree's vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Should we delete the article on Martin Luther King because he has been surpassed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.103.161 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes no sense. Martin Luther King's impact on the civil rights movement was about a million times as great as Karanja's impact on chess. Krakatoa (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion. Was Karanja a newsworthy person or not? If not, then is King a newsworthy person (in current events)?

Karanja inspired many players and was a pioneer in his field. Would we dare to delete the article on Cerf because the net has surpassed his own contributions? Certainly not. We can just rewrite the article, unless you feel like deleting Josh's article because he is no longer active (and has been surpassed). 75.159.103.161 (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The point, though, is that notability is not temporary. If there was enough coverage in reliable sources at the time when he was considered a prodigy, it should not matter that he did not subsequently develop into a GM or IM or whatever. I'll say Weak Keep based on the New York Times article covering the Kasparov simul and significant coverage in such magazines as Ebony as shown by the Google Books Search here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Delete. It is true that Karanja won the Aspis award, but all other details point to him not being worthy of an article. True, he was once a prodigy, but he petered out and stopped playing. Also, the fact that he drew in a simul against Kasparov is not sufficiently notable in its self. Josh Waitzkin did more in his chess life than draw with Kasparov, whereas it is questionable whether Karanja did. Oh, and I can't find any indication that this chess book that he wrote is notable at all. Therefore, I say delete. GrandMattster 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:BARE. He was named in a 1988 Times article [1], and a quick search online [2] reveals many possible citations. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I don't agree with WP:NTEMP as applied to this article. To me what was notable then isn't now, likewise most of what is in the papers today won't be notable in 50 years time. On the other hand, I don't see any sense in deleting what is now a pretty decent article. So overall I really don't care. SunCreator (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K._K._Karanja&oldid=1070266016"